By your own admission, the Russian government used the "technicality" of playing in a church to convict Pussy Riot.

yes, and they learned that from the greatest western democracies ... don't you see a progress, dear ? it was a technicality, but according to the letter of the law... shocking, huh ? were you really hoping for a warrantless arrest and execution by a firing squad ... wake up.

The point is that Capone was put in prison where murderers like him belong. By comparing Pussy Riot to Al Capone you apparently think they are criminals too.

the point was that both convictions were legally correct... which for Russia is a progress (from what was before)... as for the convicted people - I noted (and you pretend that I did not), I do not mind punks mocking whoever they want outside of the church... I do like punks being convicted for doing this in church and using the faith figures ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Mary ) in the process according to the letter of law of that particular country.

You bet your sweet bippy I find it incompetent, Slobodan. But I also realize it was elected in the usual way and in accordance with the Constitution (with a couple questionable exceptions where the count was uncomfortably close). What that means to me is that the citizens have exercised "citizens' control," and that's what Vlad was after.

I really need to add that I think the citizens doing the controlling are out of their minds, but nothing in the Constitution says you have to be either intelligent or informed to vote.

- There is valid concern that weakening Prism or getting rid of it may result in terrorist acts not being stopped with the tragic consequence of civil casualties,

So in the 1980s and 1990s when PRISM didn't exist, how many terrorist acts were there on US soil?

Quote

- Speaking about the US, there is beyond reasonable doubt that the official instances in charge of monitoring the actual operations of Prism had not been fully disclosed on the exact scope of Prism. This is the key issue since it raises the question of democratic control... who is running the show if citizens elected representatives are not?

The government bureaucracy/administration.

This is why a change in elected president (Bush -> Obama) makes almost no difference on a whole range of topics. It points to the fact that the people who are elected are no longer really in control, they're just figureheads and that it is the institution of government that is in control. How do you fix that?

There's also the possibility that it is the people who donate large amounts of money to political parties/campaigns that have a rather large influence on politics and what makes it into law. An easy example of this is all of the attempts to get really nasty copyright law into government - for example to make copyright infringement a felony rather than a civil issue - at the behest of bodies like the RIAA/MPAA. The solution there is to remove or limit the amount of money that gets into politics.

not advocating anything necessarily,but all the hacks, farmerfabs, and PITAsses ain't gong along for all the $ spent,anyone with encrypted internet and a piece of plexi can thwart most intel anyway,physical limitations aren't a challenge, and technical ones are hacked within 24 hours usually.So for all the idiots out there unable to harden their security to that level,well good,they are too stupid to be the assholes that blow up women and children anyway,only governments and low tech can compete,so now this is what we pay to do,billions and billions,we have a snitch or camera at so many locations that crime seems to have gone down,but we have all out wars in the ghetto,How?How is it that even to this day there is no mention of the vast amounts of COCAINE the contras, vis a vis,CIAsmuggled into the US to begin with?How is it that we can bust someone like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivien-lesnik-weisman/jason-hammond-arrested_b_3602102.htmlbut not one person went to jail over the Iraq lie?How is it that we'll spend just inordinate amounts of money on jails and then groom people to fill them,but to ask for childhood program funding you must first make allowances for the burgeoning prison industrial complex?How is it that we'll argue if the idiot snowden is doing the right thing by exposing our govt for what it is and always has been?Why are you all so scared of terrorists?USA=#1 mindsuck nation

There's also the possibility that it is the people who donate large amounts of money to political parties/campaigns that have a rather large influence on politics and what makes it into law. An easy example of this is all of the attempts to get really nasty copyright law into government - for example to make copyright infringement a felony rather than a civil issue - at the behest of bodies like the RIAA/MPAA. The solution there is to remove or limit the amount of money that gets into politics.

Even if the odds that this really happens are slim, who in his right mind wouldn't want to get rid of the possibility that this may happen? Besides the people who would be benefiting from this of course.

Making it illegal for corporations and lobbies to fund congressman and campaigns should be a total nobrainer, right?

This is certainly an interesting discussion. Not being an American citizen, and not having even visited America, I'm not sure I should be commenting. However, I can't resist making some general points.

Regarding the undermining of the democratic process that the operation of Prism implies, I'm reminded of that famous dictum from Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Perhaps the problem is that the ideals of true Democracy are not practicable when our security is at risk, just as the ideals of true Christianity in many situations are not practicable and usually involve huge amounts of hypocrisy.

It has always seemed to me to be totally absurd to wage a war in order to defend fundamental Christian principles which include, "Thou shallt not kill", and "Love thine enemy".

It also seems absurd to me that a Christian country would recruit into the army men who had had a Christian upbringing, then teach such recruits to kill the enemy on command. It's not surprising there are so many cases of PTSD among combat soldiers.

Ideally, one would hope that being a Christian would exclude a person from being accepted as a recruit in the Armed Forces on the grounds that such a person would be expected to engage in activities during combat which would be in clear and direct conflict with the fundamentals of his Christian belief.

Of course, it's understood that such a recruitment process that excluded all Christians would fail to recruit a sufficient number of soldiers, and would also leave a loop-hole for nominal Christians, without any strong belief, to avoid military service.

In a similar way, perhaps the application of a true Democratic process with regard to a nation's security and economic interests, is not practicable.

Perhaps the fundamental reality is, we are all driven by animal instincts, and the primary concerns of such instincts are survival, dominance, power, territorial gains, and position-seeking within the hierarchy of a pecking order which all animal species seem to have.

The high ideals of a perfect democracy and the best principles of certain religions may be something to strive towards, but when crunch comes to crunch, those ideals tend to fly out of the window, and our survival instincts tend to dominate.

This is certainly an interesting discussion. Not being an American citizen, and not having even visited America, I'm not sure I should be commenting. However, I can't resist making some general points.

Unquote

Ray you obviously haven't read the subject matter? I will give you a clue it is at the beginning of the thread. You can comment because the original subject was about being a hero or not. Unfortunately the thread has been hijacked into a debate about freedom of America. Some of the posters have the ability to dance on a pin head when it comes to debating anything but the subject. Again some personal comments have also appeared. So if you wish to get involved in that mire then good luck.

Perhaps the fundamental reality is, we are all driven by animal instincts, and the primary concerns of such instincts are survival, dominance, power, territorial gains, and position-seeking within the hierarchy of a pecking order which all animal species seem to have.

The high ideals of a perfect democracy and the best principles of certain religions may be something to strive towards, but when crunch comes to crunch, those ideals tend to fly out of the window, and our survival instincts tend to dominate.

That, of course, is the basic law of life as we know it.

It's the reason why all of the bleeding-heart bullshit is bullshit: it flies in the face of reality as it has ever been. It can't and won't change. Ever. That perfect world of brotherly love: it is the same perennial topic that fills youthful conversation - when it isn't about the invention of sex - as it has always done; it's why such topics become so wearying to anyone with a mental age over twelve. Okay - thirteen, to stretch the point. We've only to realise that it doesn't even exist within a family. How can one dream of it sweeping the world? All, at some time or another, have been there, had the thought of perfect human harmony on Earth, and concluded that it's more productive to have a walk in the park instead.

The problem with it online is that the players usually don't know one another, can't make informed guesses about where the others grew up, what influenced their early years, their real expectations and possibilities in life and whether, in fact, it's all a word-game to them as they sit at the monitor with nothing much better to do with their time... then of course, enter the left-wing evangelists. Dear Lord save us from the impossible cant.

but did he steal or not ? in the greatest democracy politicians do steal - what do you expect from people there ... being in opposition ( = thiefs who lost the power struggle ) does not make you a saint by the mere fact of that ( but being aligned with a current gang of thiefs, Putin & Co, do lessen a chance to be convicted a lot indeed )...

how it can be functional if the primary concern of 99% elected reps is to be re-elected and when they decide not to run they are in 99% cases not exactly in a prime state to push for something of value in their legislation body